Public distribution is not covered by the private copying exemption; Canadian case law on the subject holds that serving something over the Internet to anyone who asks is public distribution. Also, torrents require quid pro quo uploading by whomever downloads, so no one who downloads music as part of a torrent does so for personal use.
Heh... a post intended as satire gets to 5-Insightful.
The real question is: when slashdot editors don't even know the difference between the web and the internet anymore, why do I continue to expect cluefulness from reader moderation?
Heh... slashdot has an editor without a clue? oh noes!
The only reason that a GSM-based phone model would be unavailable without a simlock is that the manufacturer (Apple in this case) refuses to distribute it except through service providers.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of legal professionals who normally have no problem applying existing law to novel situations but who turn into drooling idiots as soon as a computer program or computer network becomes involved?
There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about the specific context, so I'll just brainstorm out loud for a bit:
- Is the IT department that made the e-mail outsourcing call in charge of purchasing hardware and OS/software licenses for academic departments' general computing needs? If not, is there a plan to provide academic departments with fully functional access to the e-mail solution on whatever platforms they are using?
- What about ADA compliance? Do the proprietary client and the platform it runs on have sufficient features to make them as accessible as accessible standards-based clients that could have been used previously? Alternately, is the web mail component accessible? Does it provide all the features of the proprietary client?
Unfortunately, I have a hunch that managers fall broadly into two categories: - Those that have both the critical thinking skills to draw that conclusion and the management skills to keep their employees happy so that they don't need it; - Those that, like "Calum Macleod of Cyber-Ark", draw a conclusion with the cause and effect the wrong way around, _and_ bring it to their employees in the form of an ultimatum!;)
' Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack." '
Oh noes! You better keep that theory in check or else we're going to have to listen to a bunch of Apple fanboys whining about how Microsoft is ripping off Apple's ideas again...
>*Microsoft has a policy where the vendors can't ship you a Windows CD so instead they have to send you a series of restore CDs. > -Never heard of this happening. I think he means HP restore CDs
HP _is_ the vendor... I think you misunderstood.
>*The #*(&$ers at HP made it so the brain dead restore scripts would not see any hardware other than the parts they shipped, and it would not >recognise the Promise controller. > -That's a driver issue. No drivers, no access to weird/different hardware
Looks like you have some common ground: >Fair enough, it isn't HP's duty to recognise everything, that would be well beyond anything I expected.
>*If you have a copy of XP to use, guess what? The key that comes with the HP box is restricted to the version of Windows on the restore CD. > - Yes, that's called a OEM key. They also have VLKs and Retail keys. Don't pirate.
Uh huh; and I should add that obviously a pirate wouldn't care about using the key on the COA.
>*That is when I learned half of the problems with Promise, the CD it provides is not bootable and contains nothing resembling a tool. > -Nothing to do with FOSS/MS. I don't think he does this once a week. If so, this is new hardware and it's new to him. Not MS's problem.
You're getting warmer.
>So this tech can't get Windows to work, installs Ubuntu, and tells the customer "Tada". >Excuse me!!! We have unneeded licenses,
That's not an issue! Not using licenses bundled at no additional cost doesn't waste anything on the buyer's part.
>an incompetent tech
Why do you think the tech is incompetent? He got the job done. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole and you really meant "non-expert"? In that case, I will have to agree, but I must warn you that expertise is hard to nail down in an immature industry that pays little attention to training. And I don't mean that just with respect to HR; even the core knowledge of the "expert" is up in the air. My idea of expertise here is knowing to skip using the bundled Windows license entirely. I'd guess that most of the Slashdot crowd agrees with me. But I can't be sure if that's what you had in mind.
>and hours of wasted install time due to the previous mentioned items.
I'm not sure how long it takes you to attempt to boot from a CD, swap a hard drive in and take a look around, and do an Ubuntu install on up-to-date hardware, but if you measure it in hours, well I hope you get paid by the hour. =)
>Fire this guy.
I'm not sure how you fire a contractor for a one time job that is complete...
>Decide if Ubuntu works,
Clearly it will.
>if so, great, get your money back from the licenses,
I urge you to enter the real world. ("Here's your $0, sir.")
>and if not then get a competent tech in there.
If you ask me, the only real mistake the tech made was not making sure to get proper drivers for the RAID controller in advance. They're all easily available online.
Yes, I know there is a way to use the bundled windows install with the RAID hardware: install the RAID driver on the previous Windows install and then image that partition onto the RAID array and swap the volume IDs. But I'm not going to knock the tech for not using it, because it's time consuming and not maintainable (e.g. no way to run the system restore tools from CD, etc.)
Something tells me that Novell's legacy Netware and NDS products earn them more money than anything linux-related, since those have large userbases, and were a huge cash cow for them back in the day. I could be totally wrong, of course.
Yeah... I don't really understand the official response either.
>Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."
Well, being verbally abusive is one thing, and charges can be brought relating to that. But when the police arrest someone because for having a home security system, whether it's because of local bribery or just because they're trying to cover their asses after misconduct was captured on tape, either way they obviously _are_ corrupt (expletives), and pointing out this blunt assessment just digs their own hole deeper.
"You know, there's nothing like a club reeking of stale and cheap pot smoke to make us feel right at home. I want to remind everybody that there is -- better quality pot available anywhere on the streets of New York than whatever you guys are smoking tonight. It smells reallly bad." -- They Might Be Giants' John Flansburgh, on stage at the Mercury Lounge (date unknown)
Re:Microsoft just seems to be kind of flailing.
on
Web 2.0, Meet .Net 3.0
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yeah...
From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"
Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.
Are you saying that the consumer market for music videos is worth more on its own to than the promotional value of music videos to the album market?
What's more likely, I expect, is that the majors want to have their cake and eat it too -- milking the promotional value in a controlled way so they can also sell the videos to consumers on the side... Obviously sites like YouTube are going to be the only way a lot of people see an unfamiliar artist's video these days, so that kind of use obviously fills the promotional role. So what if it's cutting into the small consumer market for videos in a minor way? It's creating lots of buzz for the artists and their music, and that can be monetized through music sales (gee... isn't that the business you're in, in fact?)
Although it seems like the record industry is a business-skills-vacuum sometimes, they've got to be able to figure this one out.
It wouldn't be much of a promotion... Most of iTMS' pre-existing competition in Canada charges 99 cents Canadian for singles (currently around 90 cents US), so they do the same.
Er... Neither are mine. From their web site: "Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, is a not-for-profit agency established in 1988 by Canadian publishers and creators to license public access to copyright works."
"This is all strongly reminiscent of the heyday of Communism and Socialism, when the bourgeoisie were hated from both ends: by the proles, because they had all the money, and by the intelligentsia, because of their tendency to spend it on lawn ornaments." --Neal Stephenson
Slashdot Mirror
Public distribution is not covered by the private copying exemption; Canadian case law on the subject holds that serving something over the Internet to anyone who asks is public distribution. Also, torrents require quid pro quo uploading by whomever downloads, so no one who downloads music as part of a torrent does so for personal use.
Heh... a post intended as satire gets to 5-Insightful.
The real question is: when slashdot editors don't even know the difference between the web and the internet anymore, why do I continue to expect cluefulness from reader moderation?
Remember, a highly skilled worker is just one head injury away from being an unskilled worker.
>Parents used to know the locals in their neighborhood and that was enough to adequately monitor their children.
Or at least they thought so at the time.
I think the real difference is that "the headlines" used to be too polite to address the problem
Heh... slashdot has an editor without a clue? oh noes!
The only reason that a GSM-based phone model would be unavailable without a simlock is that the manufacturer (Apple in this case) refuses to distribute it except through service providers.
Is it just me, or does it seem like there are a lot of legal professionals who normally have no problem applying existing law to novel situations but who turn into drooling idiots as soon as a computer program or computer network becomes involved?
WTF is a 3.5" laptop hard drive?
Please get your facts straight _before_ you post.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about the specific context, so I'll just brainstorm out loud for a bit:
- Is the IT department that made the e-mail outsourcing call in charge of purchasing hardware and OS/software licenses for academic departments' general computing needs? If not, is there a plan to provide academic departments with fully functional access to the e-mail solution on whatever platforms they are using?
- What about ADA compliance? Do the proprietary client and the platform it runs on have sufficient features to make them as accessible as accessible standards-based clients that could have been used previously? Alternately, is the web mail component accessible? Does it provide all the features of the proprietary client?
Cool! A valid conclusion!
;)
Unfortunately, I have a hunch that managers fall broadly into two categories:
- Those that have both the critical thinking skills to draw that conclusion and the management skills to keep their employees happy so that they don't need it;
- Those that, like "Calum Macleod of Cyber-Ark", draw a conclusion with the cause and effect the wrong way around, _and_ bring it to their employees in the form of an ultimatum!
' Macleod concluded: "So as far as doing the right thing, I'd suggest that you start from the basis that your IT staff are the biggest risk to your organization's security, and if anyone of them disputes this, remember that arguing with colleagues was one of the clear signs of an impending attack." '
Oh noes! You better keep that theory in check or else we're going to have to listen to a bunch of Apple fanboys whining about how Microsoft is ripping off Apple's ideas again...
>*Microsoft has a policy where the vendors can't ship you a Windows CD so instead they have to send you a series of restore CDs.
> -Never heard of this happening. I think he means HP restore CDs
HP _is_ the vendor... I think you misunderstood.
>*The #*(&$ers at HP made it so the brain dead restore scripts would not see any hardware other than the parts they shipped, and it would not
>recognise the Promise controller.
> -That's a driver issue. No drivers, no access to weird/different hardware
Looks like you have some common ground:
>Fair enough, it isn't HP's duty to recognise everything, that would be well beyond anything I expected.
>*If you have a copy of XP to use, guess what? The key that comes with the HP box is restricted to the version of Windows on the restore CD.
> - Yes, that's called a OEM key. They also have VLKs and Retail keys. Don't pirate.
Uh huh; and I should add that obviously a pirate wouldn't care about using the key on the COA.
>*That is when I learned half of the problems with Promise, the CD it provides is not bootable and contains nothing resembling a tool.
> -Nothing to do with FOSS/MS. I don't think he does this once a week. If so, this is new hardware and it's new to him. Not MS's problem.
You're getting warmer.
>So this tech can't get Windows to work, installs Ubuntu, and tells the customer "Tada".
>Excuse me!!! We have unneeded licenses,
That's not an issue! Not using licenses bundled at no additional cost doesn't waste anything on the buyer's part.
>an incompetent tech
Why do you think the tech is incompetent? He got the job done. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole and you really meant "non-expert"? In that case, I will have to agree, but I must warn you that expertise is hard to nail down in an immature industry that pays little attention to training. And I don't mean that just with respect to HR; even the core knowledge of the "expert" is up in the air. My idea of expertise here is knowing to skip using the bundled Windows license entirely. I'd guess that most of the Slashdot crowd agrees with me. But I can't be sure if that's what you had in mind.
>and hours of wasted install time due to the previous mentioned items.
I'm not sure how long it takes you to attempt to boot from a CD, swap a hard drive in and take a look around, and do an Ubuntu install on up-to-date hardware, but if you measure it in hours, well I hope you get paid by the hour. =)
>Fire this guy.
I'm not sure how you fire a contractor for a one time job that is complete...
>Decide if Ubuntu works,
Clearly it will.
>if so, great, get your money back from the licenses,
I urge you to enter the real world. ("Here's your $0, sir.")
>and if not then get a competent tech in there.
If you ask me, the only real mistake the tech made was not making sure to get proper drivers for the RAID controller in advance. They're all easily available online.
Yes, I know there is a way to use the bundled windows install with the RAID hardware: install the RAID driver on the previous Windows install and then image that partition onto the RAID array and swap the volume IDs. But I'm not going to knock the tech for not using it, because it's time consuming and not maintainable (e.g. no way to run the system restore tools from CD, etc.)
What, the "system consultant" didn't bend over and take it up the ass from the vendor? He must be ignorant or inexperienced. =)
Something tells me that Novell's legacy Netware and NDS products earn them more money than anything linux-related, since those have large userbases, and were a huge cash cow for them back in the day. I could be totally wrong, of course.
CALEA -- Because there's no reason the communists and corrupt despots should have all the fun.
Yeah... I don't really understand the official response either.
>Police reported that Gannon "has a history of being verbally abusive" toward police, and that after his arrest, he remarked that the officers "were a bunch of corrupt (expletives)."
Well, being verbally abusive is one thing, and charges can be brought relating to that. But when the police arrest someone because for having a home security system, whether it's because of local bribery or just because they're trying to cover their asses after misconduct was captured on tape, either way they obviously _are_ corrupt (expletives), and pointing out this blunt assessment just digs their own hole deeper.
"You know, there's nothing like a club reeking of stale and cheap pot smoke to make us feel right at home. I want to remind everybody that there is -- better quality pot available anywhere on the streets of New York than whatever you guys are smoking tonight. It smells reallly bad."
-- They Might Be Giants' John Flansburgh, on stage at the Mercury Lounge (date unknown)
Yeah...
From the article: "Microsoft has decided to avoid any confusion in the naming scheme for its core developer technology [...]"
Before my brain shuts down in order to protect itself and I start drooling on myself, I should say that it's one thing for tech journalists to be clueless and incoherent; it's another entirely for them to report something that's exactly the opposite of what's happening just because it's in the corporate press release.
Are you saying that the consumer market for music videos is worth more on its own to than the promotional value of music videos to the album market?
What's more likely, I expect, is that the majors want to have their cake and eat it too -- milking the promotional value in a controlled way so they can also sell the videos to consumers on the side... Obviously sites like YouTube are going to be the only way a lot of people see an unfamiliar artist's video these days, so that kind of use obviously fills the promotional role. So what if it's cutting into the small consumer market for videos in a minor way? It's creating lots of buzz for the artists and their music, and that can be monetized through music sales (gee... isn't that the business you're in, in fact?)
Although it seems like the record industry is a business-skills-vacuum sometimes, they've got to be able to figure this one out.
It wouldn't be much of a promotion... Most of iTMS' pre-existing competition in Canada charges 99 cents Canadian for singles (currently around 90 cents US), so they do the same.
downloading music _for_ personal use, I should say
How is downloading of music personal use not "private copying" under the law? Does the recent case law have something to do with this?
Er... Neither are mine. From their web site: "Access Copyright, The Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency, is a not-for-profit agency established in 1988 by Canadian publishers and creators to license public access to copyright works."
Could be... IMHO, Wired Digital hasn't had this much of a spine since before they sold off the magazine in '98.
Maybe they thought they would at least get negotiations in good faith. But the joke's on them; it's Apple, after all.
"This is all strongly reminiscent of the heyday of Communism and Socialism, when the bourgeoisie were hated from both ends: by the proles, because they had all the money, and by the intelligentsia, because of their tendency to spend it on lawn ornaments."
--Neal Stephenson